Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

> Do you want us liberal to go home?

	I've long thought that the majority here *were* liberal and that it 
	was they who wanted us conservatives to go home.

			Alfred

    Also see Note 34.*, "This Notes File"
    
    Richard

    Pat,
    
    	No, I don't want any one of you to go home!  This is *not*
    a homogenous file.
    
    	It is hoped that we can exchange and understand our differences,
    perhaps even to appreciate our differences, as Christians and
    inquirers into Christianity.
    
    	One need not be Christian to participate.  We even have a resident
    Zen Buddhist who is a valued contributor!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 417.0 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

        My hope for this conference is that, for those who need or
        prefer it, it can be a "non threatening" place to discuss any
        topic related in any plausible way to Christ or Christianity.

        I suspect that in the above paragraph, the phrase "non
        threatening" is a key point, and one which itself could
        engender much dispute.  Statements presented as truths,
        regardless of their source, can be very threatening to some
        people in some circumstances.

        Does this mean that participants in this conference must
        refrain from stating the truth as they know it, or refrain
        from stating the reason why they hold such to be true?  I
        should hope not!  That would leave hardly anything left to
        discuss!

        Rather, I think that this could be a place where Christian
        topics could be discussed with extra sensitivity and
        awareness of the needs and capacity of the other
        participants, emotional as well as spiritual.

        Christ dealt with people in many different ways.  When
        dealing with the reputed experts in spiritual ways, the
        teachers, he could be sharply critical and to the point,
        e.g.:

              Matt 23:27  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
              hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers,
              which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within
              full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

        On the other hand, Christ was very gentle with ordinary
        folks, e.g.:

              John 8:7  So when they continued asking him, he lifted
              up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin
              among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8:8  And
              again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 8:9 
              And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their
              own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the
              eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone,
              and the woman standing in the midst. 8:10  When Jesus
              had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he
              said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?
              hath no man condemned thee? 8:11  She said, No man,
              Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn
              thee: go, and sin no more.

        Jesus was quite gentle both towards the woman and towards the
        people who would stone her.  His proclamation of the truth is
        there, "sin no more", but without the pounding and repetition
        and elaboration that so is common among some Christians.

        Another example:

              Luke  7:37  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was
              a sinner, when she knew that [Jesus] sat at meat in the
              Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
              7:38  And stood at his feet behind [him] weeping, and
              began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them]
              with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and
              anointed [them] with the ointment. 7:39  Now when the
              Pharisee which had bidden him saw [it], he spake within
              himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would
              have known who and what manner of woman [this is] that
              toucheth him: for she is a sinner.... 7:47  Wherefore I
              say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven;
              for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven,
              [the same] loveth little. 7:48  And he said unto her,
              Thy sins are forgiven.

        I would hope that the participants in this file emulate the
        above, but I see no practical way of mandating or setting up
        a standard for such behavior.  Each of us has to want this
        kind of conference as a goal, or we just don't get such a
        conference.  We moderators can't do it for you.  

        Please feel free to state the truth as you know it, and
        please feel free to state your reasons for this position. 
        But don't feel free to vainly repeat what you have to say or
        to brow-beat others merely because others disagree with you
        or are taking a position you believe to be wrong.  State
        your piece, and it will stand or fall on its merits. 
        Repetition and verbal beatings do nothing to make a point.

        Your servant and the Lord's,
        Bob

re Note 417.1 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> > Do you want us liberal to go home?
> 
> 	I've long thought that the majority here *were* liberal and that it 
> 	was they who wanted us conservatives to go home.

        Alfred,

        The "liberal" and "conservative" pigeonholes are grossly
        overused in our (US) society these days.  Under the celibacy
        topic, you'll find Richard and me (and other so-called
        "liberals") taking some decidedly conservative positions on a
        particular topic.  I think that the only people I would
        discourage from participation in this conference are the
        "knee-jerk" types, both "knee-jerk conservatives" and
        "knee-jerk liberals".

        Bob

    Interesting comments, Pat.  I think that the difference between this
    notes file and GOLF::CHRISTIAN is not symmetrical.  GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    *is*, as you mentioned, a conservative Christian notes file, a fact
    that is ensured by the power of moderator censorship.  Look on the
    bright side; at least you didn't stumble there by accident and try to
    discuss theology; you would have come away *really* feeling negative
    about Christianity.  :-)  The difference is that this notes file has no
    explicit theological charter, so it isn't really just for moderate or
    liberal Christians. Many moderate or liberal Christians participate
    here because the moderation here is open to them, unlike what they find
    in GOLF::, but conservative Christians *also* participate here, and
    have every right to do so.

    That means that there is nothing to ensure that there will always be
    honest dialogue here in a supportive manner (you've already been
    preached at in a reply to this very topic--which sort of proves your
    point, doesn't it?)  Unfortunately, this is not really a supportive
    environment; it *is* an open environment.  Several people have left
    this notes file after having been preached at.  Sometimes the
    passionately felt views get expressed in a way that hurts others, often
    unintentionally.  On the other hand, sometimes those guilty of the
    offending behavior think that they are doing the rest of the world a
    service, and they don't really care if they hurt others or not.  In
    some brands of Christianity it is not empathy and compassion but fire
    and brimstone that characterize the faith.  In an open environment like
    this, I don't think there is really anything that can be done about it,
    unless we want this notes file to become a mirror image of GOLF::, with
    active moderator intervention.  I think most of us would shudder to
    ponder that fate for this notes conference.

    What is the solution?  I don't know.  My own involvement here has
    diminished lately. so I am not the person to offer advice.  All I can
    say is that I personally appreciate your contributions here. 

    -- Mike

    Mike, Bob, Richard, and also Bonnie who responded off line,
    
    Thank you for your support here.  I appreciate it.  Your support helps
    empower me to realize that perhaps the most appropriate response to a
    note that is so diverse from my views is to not respond at all.  There
    is a lot of good discussion in here in spite of some of the
    evangelizing.
    
    
    Pat
    
    
    

    Please stay with us, Pat.  Personally I participate because of the
    divergence of view honestly expressed and (usually) with love and
    without rancour.
    
    With love,
    
    
    Brian.
    

    Yes, please stay.  Many of the "regulars" here are very liberal.  You
    soon learn when not to "rise to the bait."  Give us all a little time
    and you'll sort us out!
    
    Nancy

   Pat,

   Stay tuned.  This is really a friendly place and a very human one.

   Allison

Pat .0,

	Something that you might also keep in mind about this file is
that on occasion you'll get some inputs which might be described as
less-divinely-guided than others.

	Don't know if you've ever been to a Friends Meeting, but when the
conditions are conducive to any message, just about any message can occur.

	Here's what happens at a Friends Meeting.  The worshippers gather
in silence.  At any moment during the worship period, any person present may
speak.  Ideally, the speaker is Spirit led.  There are no designated leaders
to conduct worship.  (I would invite Mike Valenza or Karen Berggren to chime
in here)

	Most of the time the messages spoken aloud are worthwhile, meaningful
and beneficial.  Sometimes they are not.  What is done about it?  Almost
nothing.  It's recognized that it's one of the hazards of being so open and
unguarded.

	We can claim no purity in this file as we all struggle to follow
the Light.  This situation calls for what is most commonly called 'discernment'.

Peace,
Richard

    re: 12
    
>	Here's what happens at a Friends Meeting.  The worshippers gather
>in silence.  At any moment during the worship period, any person present may
>speak.  Ideally, the speaker is Spirit led.  There are no designated leaders
>to conduct worship.  (I would invite Mike Valenza or Karen Berggren to chime
>in here)
    
    Hummm!  A ceremony in the Gnostic tradition!
    
>	Most of the time the messages spoken aloud are worthwhile, meaningful
>and beneficial.  Sometimes they are not.  What is done about it?  Almost
>nothing.  It's recognized that it's one of the hazards of being so open and
>unguarded.
    
    Well, another way to look at it is to realize that it is an open group
    and that all messages aren't going be meaningful to all, and possibly
    may not dawn upon who it is intended for until sometime after the
    meeting.  
    
    What must be constant or growing is one's faith that all said has
    meaning for someone, and nothing is wasted...keep the faith.
    
    Playtoe

    Hi Pat,
    
    I will echo what others have already said, this is an open file where
    people are encouraged to share their beliefs, and sometimes they run
    contrary.  Sometimes it gets a little emotional and notes are not
    always written out of mutual respect and care for the person being
    addressed.  I've been guilty of this myself on occasion. :-)  But we're
    all learning and leaning into the light of God as we do, but sometimes
    the other half of our mind is still in darkness.
    
    Anyway, I'd like to encourage you to continue here.  I've enjoyed your 
    entries a great deal and feel much affinity with your journey, and I've 
    struggled with many of the same questions.
    
    Peace,
    Karen
    

    
    I appreciate all your responses and will continue to participate in
    this file.  Writing this note has also caused me to examine more
    closely what was bothering me and I have used the advice of Margerent Lerner
    who has written two great books, Dance of Anger, and Dance of Intimacy.
    The advice is to focus on oneself and how one is responding to a
    situation recognizing that one can only change themselves.  
    
    Thank you
    all.
    
    Pat
    
    
    Pa

    RE: 15
    
>    The advice is to focus on oneself and how one is responding to a
>    situation recognizing that one can only change themselves.  
    
    I think that is KEY advice here.  If everyone did that surely personal
    insults and attacks would be nonexistent....I think, I feel, IMO, etc
    vs You think, you feel, you level of intelligence.  The "I" acts as a
    ground to your words...."you" gives off a shock.
    
    Playtoe

    >   She has a higher level of emotional intensity, in general, because 
    >
    >   of her natural bias for humanity (which comes through her).
    
    >   Both of these characteristics are vital and good for humanity, but in
    >   terms of justice, it all to often makes for inequitible and unfair
    >   judgement...she has a serious problem overcoming her natural bias to
    >   view situations, subjects and ideas in an objective manner.  Of course,
    >   some women can do it *at times*, but no women is a man!  
    
    >   I believe that it is more on this sort of line that Paul asks that
    >   women keep silent in the church, because their manner of thinking, or
    >   framing questions, of seeing the "big picture" is biased in such a way
    >   that is not conducive to objectivity and equality in judgement...a
    >   women has a hard time accepting the idea of "as you meet so shall it be
    >   meeted unto you", a female needs conditions with that statement, a male
    >   can "take it like a man"...this are just natural reality, it would be
    >   wrong to neglect these facts of life.
    
    Playtoe, 
    
    Let me see if I can explain "the advice is to focus on oneself and how
    one is responding to a situation recognizing that one can only change
    themselves"  a little differently.
    
    Focusing on myself, I know that those paragraphs you wrote are
    extremely bigoted toward woman.  They have been used for centuries to
    keep women uneducated, out of colleges, out of pulpits etc.  I know
    that your "baiting" me with these remarks would have infuriated me
    earlier.  No matter how many "I thinks,  "I feel" etc you began with
    would not change the nature of the remarks.  Focusing on myself, I
    don't care what your motivation was for the remarks.  I know that I
    control only how I respond to them.  Initially I(as well as all the
    other people in this conference who are offended by them) chose to just
    ignore them.  Your last two answers in my opionion are more acceptable.
    I will assume you are looking for sincere dialogue so I will address 
    the issue directly.  I feel insulted by  your initial response.  This
    conference is not a matter of meting out and taking verbal abuse.  For
    me this conference is an aid to help me articulate and clarify more
    precicely what I believe.  Honest interchange with others gives me new
    perspectives on looking at the beliefs I have articulated.  Taking
    responsibility for myself means not replying to responses such as yours
    in a knee jerk fashion but either directly telling you how I feel about
    your response or ignoring it.  Being responsible only for how the
    response impacts me and knowing that I cannot change you or your
    response.
    
    Pat
    
    
    
    Pat
    
    

   Playtoe,

   I view the Bible as history, allogory, and metaphor as part of of my
   spritual guide.  What I don't get from it is the a uniquely biased 
   view as you have presented about women.  You can stand on the physical
   differences and within differences there are variations, but to build
   a theology on it is, living in the history and then saying they were 
   right.  Bigotry has worked that way for years though.  

   Scarcastic alert:

   Maybe you would reframe your thoughts and try again, say in the 20th
   century.

   Allison

    re: 19
    
>   spritual guide.  What I don't get from it is the a uniquely biased 
>   view as you have presented about women.  You can stand on the physical
>   differences and within differences there are variations, but to build
>   a theology on it is, living in the history and then saying they were 
<   right.  Bigotry has worked that way for years though.  
    
    I do not find my view biased, because it at least attempts to define
    reality and theology must be based upon reality.  It is a biased
    opinion that causes us to reject reality because of our past bad
    experience in certain situations.  You know, we spoke a little to this
    issue in discussing "Hindu vs Christianity", in that many Christians
    want to believe THEIR'S is the ONLY TRUE religion, but I ask why would
    the doctrine of a "Crucified Savior" be sent to a people who never
    crucified a savior.  In that same light, this stuff about "sexual bias"
    in the bible, to the extent that it is an "injustice" to women, is
    perhaps more valid to women who've considered themselves misused and
    abused than women who haven't.
    
>   Maybe you would reframe your thoughts and try again, say in the 20th
>   century.
    
    Why has God changed, or have Men become "child bearers", or is their an
    earthly love now stronger than "Motherly Love"?  Why wouldn't you
    consider reframe you thoughts to interpret those ancient truths
    correctly in 21st Century terms, as opposed to letting 21st century
    opinions cause you to reject ancient and still prevailing truths?
    
    Inspite of how what I've said my sound through the reality of the 21st
    century earphones, I know from experience that it is an inescapable
    truth that females will be females and males will be males and never
    the twain shall meet except as complementary poles effecting the
    creation of new life and love...
    
    I'm moved to ask "What is love?" to those who disagree with this.  Some
    seem to forget the nucleus of universal power and force...is it not
    LOVE?  With love as a nucleus one clearly sees the complementarity of
    opposing forces...What is the central theme of life and reality?
    
    Playtoe

    For the record, I also do not agree with the premise stated regarding 
    the differences between men and women, reflected in the paragraphs which 
    Pat highlighted in .17.
    
    The so-called "facts" that were cited, particularly that a woman's 
    manner of thinking not being conducive to objectivity and equality 
    in judgement reflect a bias commonly found in research that names
    the masculine gender as the "norm" for all human behavior.
    
    Extensive current research that has taken place during this last
    decade in particular, reveal the assumptions and biases undergirding 
    this hitherto proposed "fact" arguing well its credibility.  As the
    dust and rubble begins to clear, the option to re-think many of its 
    conclusions on the nature of differences between women and men is 
    the only choice people of conscience truly have....imo.
    
    Regardless of any difference, (with few exceptions such as mental
    capacity to adequately care for oneself) as stated in .18, it does 
    not give any group or individual the right to be dominant over another.
    
    Karen

    I think if you want a better example of why Pat posed the question of
    "what this file is all about", just look at the evolution of this
    topic.  Initially, Pat point out that sometimes people are "beaten up"
    for sincerely expressing their views; in passing, to illustrate the
    point, she mentions her personal religious experience with theological
    discussion in one particular issue.  Guess what--she is then preached
    at over the views she expressed in passing in that illustration from
    her personal life, thus ironically illustrating what she noted in the
    base note.  And the original question--"what this file is all
    about"--is all but forgotten, as the discussion has totally changed
    into a debate over that one question.

    -- Mike

    RE: 22
    
    I understand that.  But was she mindful of the nature of this forum? 
    I have been beaten up myself for entering "sincere views" but not in
    the context of Christian Perspectives...I can only expect that here. 
    Fair is fair!  I felt it was MY fault, however.
    
    I note your header...
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 21
    
>    The so-called "facts" that were cited, particularly that a woman's 
>    manner of thinking not being conducive to objectivity and equality 
>    in judgement reflect a bias commonly found in research that names
>    the masculine gender as the "norm" for all human behavior.
 
    I don't agree with that research, masculine is NOT the "norm" for
    feminine behavior, but that doesn't negate those areas in which it is
    most conducive to a particular task.
    
>   not give any group or individual the right to be dominant over another.
 
    I agree one thousand percent!  But it also doesn't give those not
    suited for the task the right to impose themselves upon situations
    where they clearly do not excel another.  If they are truly equal in
    ability in a specific area they should receive equal treatment, but if
    not that reality MUST be taken into consideration...and that's only
    fair.  And if a person doesn't accept the fact that they are not the
    best person for the job, when evidence clearly proves it, what do we do
    then?
    
    I kinda think certain problems are not going to find solutions in the
    context that certain folk DEMAND they be put in...
    
    If you don't agree that a "child bearer" has a tendency to care for the
    child more than the counterpart who does not, then I'd like to see the
    research which proves it otherwise?  I really haven't heard of such a
    thing.
    
    When a "Mother's Love" cannot be found we are truly unloved in the
    world....My Mother, personally, is my FAVORITE female, and no male
    exceeds her in terms of who I care for and love in my whole life, not
    even Dad...is that because I'm a male?  No.  It's because my mother
    "weaned" me, and cuddled me and walked with me, showed me the first
    "devoted love" I know.  I think females also feel that way about Mother
    as well, but as time passes they have "female" differences.
    
    Playtoe
    Playtoe

.21  Karen Berggren
    
>>    The so-called "facts" that were cited, particularly that a woman's 
>>    manner of thinking not being conducive to objectivity and equality 
>>    in judgement reflect a bias commonly found in research that names
>>    the masculine gender as the "norm" for all human behavior.
 
.24  Playtoe

>    I don't agree with that research, masculine is NOT the "norm" for
>    feminine behavior, but that doesn't negate those areas in which it is
>    most conducive to a particular task.
 

	Let me first say that gender specific bias is against the law.  For
years men were the only part of our society researching human behavior.  To
make the kind of sweeping statements that you do, I find a bit puzzling in
light of what you and I have shared offline.  I doubt that you would agree 
to the kind of statements you have made about women applied to your heritage,
and yet they have been made for years....and were/are *WRONG*.  


<co-mod hat>

	Gender specific bias is also against company policy and this notes
string is bordering on statements that are against company policy.  Please
refrain from making statements which *could* force the shutdown of this file.
Before that happens I will shut down this notes string.  Please keep it 
within the 1.* guidelines.

<hat off>

Dave

    in re .23
    
    Pat's statements are definitely in tune with the nature of this forum
    as it was created and as the creators intended the file to be. On the
    other hand judgemental dogmaticism is not being mindful of the nature
    of this file.
    
    Bonnie

    re: 25
    
>    I don't agree with that research, masculine is NOT the "norm" for
>    feminine behavior, but that doesn't negate those areas in which it is
>    most conducive to a particular task.
    
    Hi, Dave:
    
    In the above statement, I point out that I do not agree that the Male
    is the "norm" for all human behavior.  But that doesn't or shouldn't
    negate those areas in which it is most conducive to a particular task. 
    In other words, the "female" specifically, and solely, is a "child
    bearer" and as such has a gender specific attribute.  If there are no
    gender specific characteristics, I think someone's fooling themselves. 
    If because of bad experiences we are refusing to look at the issue then
    we need to reevaluate that. 
    
    I also said 
    
>    I kinda think certain problems are not going to find solutions in the
>    context that certain folk DEMAND they be put in...
    
    And this seems to be the case in America, especially since "gender
    bias" is illegal...though it definitely is a part of natural reality.
    
    I understand this aspect of Western culture, it happens all the time. 
    But it will be the undoing of America to continue to neglect the truth
    for the sake of "offending people", especially when there is
    discrimination and bias in terms of race and nationality...

    Being capable of pregnancy and being of different muscular
    structure do not make women any less intellectually capable
    than men, nor does it make them better at parenting or
    any other nuturing function. It is true that men are better
    at jobs that require muscular strength.
    
    Just about anything else is cultural.

    Might I suggest moving the tangental discussion to Note 154
    "Christianity and Gender Roles" or perhaps another topic?
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    Your sources must be different than mine, Playtoe (.30)
    
<<    of a person, inspite of their need to be punished/corrected.  A Male
    has a tendency to think of the welfare of the community moreso than any
    individual.  The female is concerned more about the "individual", and
    the male is concerned with the "collective"...and as such, Males are
    usually best suited to "public affairs", and as such should be silent
  
    In the studies I've read, women tend to be concerned with the welfare
    of all, not just the individual.  Women tend to be better 'team
    players' because they view the team as a whole, rather than trying to
    be the star player.  In any case, as Bonnie said in her note, much of
    this is cultural conditioning.
    
    Richard feel free to move this note along with the others to a more
    appropriate topic.
    
    Ro
    

    I concur with Ro, and if I wasn't just about to leave I'd move
    these, if no one has by morning I'll do it..
    
    B

    RE: 31
    
    I'm ready to move to the appropriate topic.  However, I'd have to say
    that if women are seen to be better team players it's because they give
    more attention to the "individuals" of the team.  However, where teams
    are competiting against other teams I don't think females excel in that
    sort of team play, because of the "caring" they are not "competitory". 
    Though the "caring" makes them good in "predatory" affairs, in that
    that are "providing" for their loved ones.
    
    It's interesting...
    
    Playtoe

    I want to thank everyone who has sincerely answered my question.  It
    really helped me focus on what I am looking for in this file and how I
    want to participate.  I am glad this note file is here.
    
    Thanks
    
    Pat

>    What is the purpose of this notes file?

For anyone who is still pondering this question, I would recommend
reading Note 1.0, composed by Bob Fleischer.  I found re-reading it
yesterday most refreshing.

Peace,
Richard

        I offer the following Scripture, and ask all who have been
        engaged in recent heated discussions to meditate on it.  I
        really do believe that it applies to all of us, myself
        included:

              Luke 6:41  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in
              thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is
              in thine own eye? 6:42  Either how canst thou say to
              thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is
              in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam
              that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out
              first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt
              thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy
              brother's eye.

        The last sentence in a more modern translation:

              "Hypocrite, remove the plank from your own eye first; 
              then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck
              from your brother's eye."

        Bob

Note 9.197

>    Local orthodoxy in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is all religions are good
>    religions if they inspire good feelings: To feel good about oneself is
>    the ultimate goal.

This seems to me to be a most curious accusation, but it's one I've heard voiced
here and offline before.  Yes, I've heard C-P maligned for placing a greater
emphasis on love than correct doctrine.  So allow me to explore this perception.

Personally, I do not believe that love is simply a "touchy-feely" thing.
Love demands more of us than our own feelings would.  Jesus expressed dynamic
love; love in motion -- love with no strings attached.  Christ went to
the cross for the sake of love, not because it seemed like a nice thing to
do or because it would feel nice.  Love is a decision; one we can always
choose to make no matter how we might feel inwardly.

I can see how one might feel frustrated	by the absence of precise uniformity,
which is characteristic of plurality.  One might feel that in such an
anarchistic environment as C-P, there exists no foundation upon which
communication can be built.  One might feel that since others failed to
conform their beliefs to "correct doctrine," that they have taken the
"easy way out."

While I do not agree with these assessments, I can seen how they might possibly
happen.

Peace,
Richard

    It's sad that liberals and conservatives really know how to hurt
    each other:
    
    Conservative or fundamentalist comment about liberal:
    "To feel good about oneself is the ultimate goal."
    
    Liberal comment about conservative or fundamentalist:
    "To accept the Bible as God's Word is to abdicate any responsibility 
    for thinking."
    
    Well, both these accusations are false, yet each probably has just
    enough truth in it to sting.

re: Note 417.37 by Richard "Peace Reservist" 

>I can see how one might feel frustrated by the absence of precise uniformity,
>which is characteristic of plurality.  One might feel that in such an
>anarchistic environment as C-P, there exists no foundation upon which
>communication can be built.  One might feel that since others failed to
>conform their beliefs to "correct doctrine," that they have taken the
>"easy way out."

Richard, I mostly agree with what you've said, but I don't think I would
characterize this file as anarchistic, which implies disorder, confusion, 
and the absence of any authority. 

Yes, there is disorder here, but I see it not as the end result, but as a
necessary stage before one can find a greater order in their faith and life. 

Yes there is confusion here, but I see that not as the end result, but as a 
necessary stage before one achieves a greater clarity of vision.

Freedom alone leads to anarchy, but freedom with responsibility does not.
I believe that most noters here are in fact responsible to an authority, 
that of the God of their understanding.  

The lack of an explicitely codified standard of that understanding, however, 
can lead to difficult situations.  Difficult because one must rely more on 
trust, the trust that other noters here are every bit as sincere in their 
faith and beliefs as oneself.  

I believe trust, even trust in God, is a precious and rare commodity, and one
that does not flourish in an atmoshpere overly concerned with "correct
doctrine".  It is easy to love and trust your friends, and those who agree
with you.  Anyone can do that.  But far more difficult to trust those whose 
viewpoints are different.

We take a difficult road.

Peace,

Jim

    Jim!
    
    	I've recently learned more about what anarchism really is.
    It's totally different than what I thought it to be!  One modern
    observer has called it "libertarian socialism," if you can imagine.
    
    	Anyway, I may start another note since this is drifting a bit.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I do not perceive CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE as fertile ground for winning
unsaved souls for Jesus or evangelizing those who've never heard the
gospel message.

I seriously doubt we have any of the uninitiated among our readership.

Peace,
Richard

    If Charles Colson and St. Paul could do it in a prison, I can at least
    try in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.

    .43
    
    Well....okay.  But, unlike prison, one would do well to remember
    that folks are here not as a sentence, but because they *want* to
    be here.
    
    :-)
    Richard
    

   Patrick,

   Don't stop, there is always the chance I might learn something new.
   In exchange, I will be a challenge.

   Peace,
   Allison

Well /john, Patrick, and possibly others,

	What would you have from this conference??

	Not everyone is going neatly line up behind traditional doctrine and
creeds.  Does that mean that these things have no value?  Of course not.
Does it mean that those who do not conform to traditional doctrine and creeds
should be silenced or discouraged from participating?  Is that what you really
want?

	Is it possible to share this space amicably, though we're not always in
theological congruence?

	Though I know you will probably perceive it as such, this is not
intended to ridicule or denigrate.

Richard

>	Is it possible to share this space amicably, though we're not always in
>theological congruence?

    Richard, the lack of response to your question from both Sweeney and
    Covert is telling, isn't it?  You see, Richard, you did not grasp the
    fundamental flaw in your question, which was your premise that sharing
    this space amicably (though we're not always in theolgoical congruence)
    is a good thing.  How could you possibly have been so silly? 
    
    :-) :-)
    
    -- Mike

There you go again, Mike.

I think the question is really "What is Love?"

A child who wants his way and who is convinced against all admonition that
he is right is not likely to see as love any corrective action by other
children or adults no matter how right the correction is.

I'll be the first to admit that I could improve the way I present the truth.

/john

    So John, you then see your relationship to others here as being akin to
    that of a parent relating to children?  Your role is one of correcting
    the rest of us?
    
    And if so, how is a condescending attitude such as that one conducive
    to fomenting bonds of friendship and reconciliation between the
    participants of this conference?  Or do you believe that such bonds are
    not desirable?
    
    -- Mike

    Except it hasn't yet been shown that anyone who notes here is in
    possession of the absolute truth.  There are those who say they possess
    the truth, who sincerely believe they possess the truth, and in the
    best traditions of evangelism, are willing to let the rest of the world
    know they possess the truth.  But yet, absent any empirical evidence,
    such beliefs are nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.  And
    that is definitely the truth.
    
    Mike

>    So John, you then see your relationship to others here as being akin to
>    that of a parent relating to children?

There you go again, Mike.

I very carefully said:

  A child who wants his way and who is convinced against all admonition that
  he is right is not likely to see as love any corrective action by other
  children or adults no matter how right the correction is.

No.  I am another child.  Our Father is in heaven.

/john

    My apologies for any misinterpretation.  Since you stated that you were
    presenting the truth here, I inferred from your analogy that any
    resentment engendered from this was simply due to the rest of us being
    childish about the correction that you were offering to us.  I admit I
    am still a little confused about that, since it seems like you do
    believe that you are correcting the rest of us here.

    I think Richard's question still stands, though.  I am wondering if you
    do believe that it is "possible to share this space amicably, though
    we're not always in theological congruence".  And if so, what are the
    causes of the friction we see here, and what can be done to improve the
    situation?

    -- Mike

I think we can share this space amicably.

When someone states something, take it at its word.  Either believe it
or don't.

Love takes many forms, and "being nice" isn't always part of every form.

I think Jill made one of the best points I've seen, which I'll expand on:
Christianity is not a social club with rules that can be changed to suit
modern man.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

/john

    RE: .53  Mr. Covert,
    
    >Love takes many forms, and "being nice" isn't always part of every
    >form.
    
    		But sometimes it is.  I have always had a problem with this
    "tough love".  Every time I have seen it employed, it has turned out to
    be destructive.
    
    
    Dave
    
    

    You have stated before that love isn't necessarily the same as being
    nice, and I still don't know what you mean by that.  If you define
    "being nice" as being compliant or always agreeing, then obviously I
    would agree that this isn't love.  But if you define "being nice" as
    being considerate of the feelings of others, treating them with respect
    rather than talking down to them, sharing your warmth, and trying to
    forge bonds of friendship and reconciliation, then I strongly disagree
    that this isn't part of love.  I think it wouldn't hurt if people tried
    to be considerate of others here much more than than they are (and I
    definitely include myself as being as guilty of that as anyone, if not
    more so.)

    I don't have a problem with strongly stated opinions.  We all get
    angry, and most of us can get strident from time to time.  But a notes
    file is not strictly an impersonal forum for the exchange of views; it
    is also a medium of interpersonal interaction.  There are human beings
    on the other side of that network link.  We form impressions based on
    consistent patterns of behavior, and a pattern that shows a complete
    disinterest in those things that I defined above as "being nice" are
    likely to engender hostility.  If we consider that in interpersonal
    interaction, the person who never smiles at anyone, engages in friendly
    conversation, or otherwise shows their human side is not likely to get
    a positive response from others--we might realize that the same is true
    in notes.  Writing nothing but impersonal, detached notes full of grand
    pronouncements, with a corresponding disinterest in the interpersonal
    side of communication--the unwillingness to display human warmth--is
    not, in my view, very loving at all.

    -- Mike

>	Is it possible to share this space amicably, though we're not always in
>theological congruence?

	Of course it is. It will however take all sides to be amicable.
	This means that lots of people will have to change their
	attitudes and ways of "communication". Will you start Richard?

			Alfred

    re: .53
    
    >I think Jill made one of the best points I've seen, which I'll expand
    >on: Christianity is not a social club with rules that can be changed to
    >suit modern man.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
    
    While God may very well be immutable, I dare say the uses to which man
    puts God are not.  Especially within the confines of organized
    religion, be it Christianity or what have you.
    
    Mike

Note 417.56

>                              -< lead by example >-

Alfred,

	I do serve as a co-moderator of this conference, but I'm not a leader.
I try to make it abundantly clear when I am wearing my co-mod hat.  And I'm
willing to resign if my position is somehow an obstacle.  I've talked about
resigning to my co-mods off-line before.

>	Of course it is. It will however take all sides to be amicable.
>	This means that lots of people will have to change their
>	attitudes and ways of "communication". Will you start Richard?

I would be willing to shift gears in order to facilitate communication.
At the same time I am not willing to compromise my faith.

I do try to use "I" phrases and take ownership for what I say.

I have to admit though, the cynic and the clown in me sometimes gets the
best of me.

*<8*)}***

Peace,
Richard

    Observing this note file for a while now, I am reaching the conclusion
    that dialogue is not possible between religious Conservatives and
    religious liberals.  
    
    The outspoken conservatives in this file feel that they have the
    absolute truth.  That they are omniscience in there knowledge of good
    and evil.  That anyone who doesn't read the bible the same way as they
    do is definately evil and it is a sign of there love to
    tell us so.  Centuries ago it was also deemed a sign of love to burn
    dissenters at the stake.(To save there soul of course.)
    
    As a liberal I believe that none of us can know the absolute truth,
    that God reveals limited truth to each of us, that how we live our lifes and
    the content of our relationships with others is more important than any
    dogma or creed, that each of us interprets what is universal in the
    bible and other scriptures, and what is based on the culture and we
    each ultimately decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.
    
    I believe that slavery, sexism, child abuse, killing, genocide and
    religious war are all wrong regardless of the fact that the bible
    encourages all of them.  And I believe that the fact that each of these
    is encourages in the bible is ample proof that the bible is not the
    word of God.  Therefore is continues to astonish me that people are so
    apt to argue "God only sanctions sex within marriage" or any other
    assumption that they know what God wants in specific situations.
    
    I do believe in human reason.  I believe that each of us can know for
    ourselves what is right or wrong.  But these are ideas about which there can
    be no real dialogue at least between liberals and conservatives.  I think
    I am beginning to understand why Christians have been killing other
    Christians for much of the 2000 years of Christian History.
    
    I do like the statement though attributed elsewhere in this file to
    Matthew Fox.  Perhaps there is a need to stay on the bus.
    
                               Patricia
    

>	I do serve as a co-moderator of this conference, but I'm not a leader.
>I try to make it abundantly clear when I am wearing my co-mod hat.  And I'm
>willing to resign if my position is somehow an obstacle.  I've talked about
>resigning to my co-mods off-line before.

	You are and would be a leader in this conference regardless of
	being a moderator. My note was not about you being a moderator.

			Alfred

>That anyone who doesn't read the bible the same way as they do is definitely
>evil and it is a sign of their love to tell us so.

I don't think I've seen any of the conservatives in this conference
use "evil" as a characterization of any of the liberals.

What I have seen are admonitions from the conservatives for all Christians
to avoid evil.

/john

    In note 300.80, Pat Sweeney wrote:
    
    	The great evil is not in the people of the world ignorant of the gospel
    	message, but the people who are aware of the gospel message and are
    	indifferent or hostile to it.
    
    I then asked him if, since I am aware of the gospel message and
    indifferent to it, that made me a great evil.  A rather obvious
    implication, I would say, to what he wrote.  He never responded to my
    question.
    
    -- Mike

	RE: .62 If his answer were to be in the affermitive than I
	believe his answering the question in notes may very well be
	interpreted as a violation of company policy. Better to avoid
	answering the question at all.

			Alfred

    I guessed that this might be why he didn't answer the question.  Of
    course, if true, the point would remain that he *believed* that I am a
    great evil, regardless of whether he said it outright or not.
    
    -- Mike

    One of the principles of communication is that one cannot *not*
    communicate.  Even silences communicate.
    
    Richard
    

	RE: .64 The wonderful thing about Notes is that if something
	is left unsaid one can assume anything one wants. One could
	as well assume the conversation had just gone off in a 
	direction that was avoiding a central point. 

	In any case there are quite a few people in the conference
	who seem to have an aversion to answering yes/no questions
	with a clear yes/no answer. So Pat would not be alone in that.

			Alfred

    In the case of the question I asked Pat, the answer was already implied
    by his earlier statement.  Clearly I *am* a great evil according to
    that statement.  His refusal to answer was probably just for the reason
    that Alfred stated.  If he had wanted to clear up a misunderstanding on
    my part, he easily could have done so.  I think it is not unusual for
    people, especially if they experience the normal range of human
    empathy, to be concerned if something they have said is misconstrued to
    be an insult when it actually isn't.  It is easy enough to say, "I'm
    sorry if you took it that way; no insult was intended."

    -- Mike

	So why bring this up Mike? Are you trying to get someone to
	say in public that you are evil? Are you looking for someone
	to say you are not evil? 

			Alfred

re: Note 417.69 by Mike "Support Judeo-Buddhist values." 

>	And frankly, as far as I am concerned,
>    believing that I am evil and leaving a not so subtle hint to that
>    effect is morally no different than simply coming right out and saying
>    it.
    
You mean like lusting after someone in your heart is no different from 
adultery?  There's a radical idea!  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    Alfred, I brought it up because John Covert said that no one here
    labeled anyone as evil in this conference.  I pointed out an example of
    where this was apparently not the case.
    
    As for why I asked him for clarification in the first place, it was
    because I wanted to confirm, one way or the other, my impression that
    he was really saying this.  If someone seems to be implying that I am
    evil, I think it is perfectly legitimate to find out if that is what
    they really mean or not.  And frankly, as far as I am concerned,
    believing that I am evil and leaving a not so subtle hint to that
    effect is morally no different than simply coming right out and saying
    it.  If he was going to imply that I was evil, I felt I had every right
    to call him on it.
    
    -- Mike

    Something like that, Jim.  :-)

Note 521.61
      
>    Whoa!  Boy, St. Peter was right when he 
>    said the wicked will twist the scriptures to their own destruction.   
              ^^^^^^
I tend to think "wicked" to be pretty much in the same category as "evil."  And
in the context of the entry, it's not difficult to figure out who this is
referring to.

I tend to let these kinds of remarks slide though, out of respect to those who
hold a conservative perspective.

In Jesus,
Richard

Pat Sweeney did not say "you are evil" -- he said "evil is in people who..."

There is a difference, and those who have been invaded by the evil of hostility
to the Gospel can cast out that evil.

Jill is treading closer to the line, but even in her case, the wicked who
first twisted the Gospel and spread the twisted message are the ones at
fault; participants in this conference can avoid the evil spread by the
wicked.

/john

    "Anyone who welcomes one little child like this in my name welcomes me. 
    But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones who have
    faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a
    great millstone round his neck." Mt 18:5-7

	Mike, you are far from being an evil person. Don't let those who feel
they have an upper hand on getting into heaven get you down. You'll be there me
boy! :-)




Glen-who-thinks-NO-ONE-has-the-upper-hand-on-getting-into-heaven

    So God does believe in capital punishment for the crime of child abuse,
    at least.

    In any case, as one who has been accused of doing Satan's work in the
    "other" Christian notes conference in the past, I think y'all would be
    a whole lot better off, and be more likely to create a collegiate sort
    of atmosphere if accusations of evil doing, etc, however veiled, were
    simply left out of this notes conference.  It just creates a situation
    wherein nothing of values gets discussed, what with all the
    charges/counter-charges that would inevitably be hurled about.

    Mike

re Note 417.76 by SOLVIT::MSMITH:

>     I think y'all would be
>     a whole lot better off, and be more likely to create a collegiate sort
>     of atmosphere if accusations of evil doing, etc, however veiled, were
>     simply left out of this notes conference.  

        I would certainly agree with this.

        However, a lot of people believe that the definition of,
        accusing of, remorse for,, repentance from, and rescuing from
        evil are what Christianity is all about (or at least a major
        part of it).  I think that they would feel quite constrained
        by a policy against all "accusations of evil doing."

        But if the other Christian conference can avoid the subject
        of homosexuality entirely as a matter of policy, then perhaps
        we can avoid "accusations of evil doing" as a matter of
        policy.  In each case it is somewhat arbitrary, but may be
        necessary for civil dialog to continue.

        Bob

    Perhaps it is your perspective that "a lot of people believe that the
    definition of, accusing of, remorse for,, repentance from, and rescuing
    from evil are what Christianity is all about (or at least a major part
    of it)"
    
    I believe a substantial volume of notes entered here that I answer are
    the concerning the denial of evil.  If others didn't deny what is evil
    according to the constant teaching of Christianity, then it wouldn't be
    a topic here.  God did not send Jesus into the world to condemn the
    world, but that the world might be saved though him.

    How many different note strings do we have to use to carry on this
    same debate?????????????
    

    John, you may be right that this was what Pat Sweeney meant.  The
    ability to clear up misunderstandings is a necessary component of human
    language, which is so full of ambiguities.  To say that there is a
    great evil in such and such *may* mean that there is a great evil
    *inside* of such people, it may mean that the mere existence of such
    and such is an evil without characterizing the people themselves one
    way or the other, or it may mean that the people themselves are evil. 
    The lack of response to my question led me to surmise that perhaps he
    felt it was better not to give an honest answer to my question, which
    suggested to me that the answer was in the affirmative.  Maybe that
    wasn't the reason he didn't respond to me.  Given the cursory nature of
    his contributions here, it is difficult to tell.

    However, on your second point, I was responding to his description of
    people who are indifferent, rather than hostile, to the Gospel.
    
    -- Mike

    But Pat, you know as well as I do that even within the Church, the
    definition of what are sinful acts, evil, changes all the time.
    
    Mike

Note 417.79

>    How many different note strings do we have to use to carry on this
>    same debate?????????????

Interesting question, Nancy.

Do I detect a hint of frustration in your question?

In Note 91.1535, I attempted to articulate the conservative perspective
towards Christianity and Gays.  I tried to dispassionately outline the
position in terms that would be inoffensive to people holding such a
perspective.  I invited others to correct me where I missed the mark.  I
noticed Bob Fleischer did something similar in another string recently.

It was an interesting exercise, because as I was putting that entry together
I realized that the same debate will likely surface over and over.  It has
to do with premises.

Anyway, I'd hate to see us imposing limits here any further than corporate
guidelines already require.

Perhaps I'm just numb from repeatedly being labeled a heretic, wicked, or
worse, myself.  I've been accused of twisting Scripture by people who insist
that they do not.  I've been accused of picking and choosing in Scripture by
people who insist that they do not.  One noter wrote me offline to advise
me that I was "spewing Satan's vomit."  My fear is that I may have become
de-sensitized to this kind of thing when it is happening to others.

Peace,
Richard

    Hmmm Mike...
    
    > But Pat, you know as well as I do that even within the Church, the
    > definition of what are sinful acts, evil, changes all the time.
    
    You're not implying that the church's moral relativism reflects
    a trend toward hedonism, are you?
    
    
    ;-)
    
    Karen

    > But Pat, you know as well as I do that even within the Church, the
    > definition of what are sinful acts, evil, changes all the time.
    
Example?

    One need go no further than the removal of eating meat on Friday from
    the list of mortal sins.
    
    Mike

That was never a mortal sin.

It was merely a matter of discipline, and some other Friday fast is still
required if you don't choose to refrain from meat.

/john

    Re: .86
    
    Wrong ...it was a "venial" sin, that if not corrected before death,
    caused the person to go to purgatory for awhile, instead of
    straight to heaven.
    
    Reference....Catholic Baltimore Catechism dated 1963.
    
    Marc H.

    
    Even then, the Catholic Church (and particularly their traditions) has
    much that is not found in the Bible as a part of their religious
    duties.
    
    People change, churches (made of people) change.  Everything changes
    over time.  Finally, maybe one can see the importance of something that
    doesn't change - God and His Word (the Bible).
    
    jeff

    Okay, so my memory has failed me! <gasp>

    Eating meat on Friday was a venial sin.  But it was a sin, and
    according to the Church, an evil act in the eyes of God.  But now, by a
    stroke of a pen, it is no longer a sin.  My original point still
    stands.

    Let's offer up some other examples:

    Once it was a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday.  Now one can attend
    mass on Saturday evening and still be safe from the fires of hell.

    Once it was forbidden for a lay person to touch the Eucharist (although
    I'm not sure if it was classified a sin).  Now lay people not only can
    touch it, they are used to help in distributing communion in some
    parishes.

    Once it was forbidden for women to enter the sanctuary during mass,
    except for very special occasions like a nuptial mass (but only in some
    parishes).  Now no less a personage than my own gray-haired mother not
    only enters the sanctuary during mass, but reads from the gospel (or
    whatever it is she reads) to the congregation.  

    No doubt there are more, but these should serve to illustrate the
    point.  Incidentally, these points are not intended to bash the church,
    but only to show that even Christianity is not quite as immutable as
    some would have us believe.  That it does respond to the needs of the
    people from time to time, albeit at a pace that some, no doubt, find
    maddeningly slow.  Indeed, this is the very reason why the pope claims
    infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine so that
    he can proclaim necessary changes to doctrine and, by extension, modify
    the moral code proclaiming that which was evil and is now not, and that
    which was not evil and now is.

    Others, of course, are very uncomfortable with such changes, and even
    go to the extent of searching out sects or parishes that conform more
    nearly to their own ideas of Christianity.  Which, of course, is why
    the Catholic Church has been kept fairly busy throughout its history
    dealing with one break-away movement or another.  The original
    Protestant sects had no better luck in maintaining their own orthodoxy,
    either.

    Mike

    Jeff, even the Bible changes.  Else there wouldn't be the big fuss that
    is continuously going on in regards to which translation of the Bible
    is more nearly correct, nor would there be so many Biblical scholars
    running about trying to determine more nearly what the original intent
    and meaning of the words actually were.  After all, the words within
    the context of the ancient cultures and ancient languages are not
    likely to convey the same intent as the their literal translation
    today.  Unfortunately, this distinction is lost to most lay people,
    mostly because the preachers don't tell them.  They would rather keep
    it simple and straight forward, which is understandable, I guess.
    
    Finally, let us not forget that the Bible was written by people with an
    agenda, was canonized by other people with another agenda, is
    translated by still different people with an agenda, and is interpreted
    to the masses by yet more people with an agenda.  All of whose agendas
    are not necessarily congruent, true, or even necesarily
    good-intentioned.
    
    Mike

    Hmmmm.  Methinks it's time for a new topic!!
    
    Richard

I hope you people are not being deliberately disingenuous by claiming that
minor changes in disciplinary rules (the violation of which are usually venial,
not mortal sins) show that the first principles of the Faith are being changed
by the Church, or that the Bible is being reinterpreted in any significant way,
allowing liberals to have their own reinterpretation of the nature of God and
of his commandments.  I hope it is just a fault in your education.

This business of fish on Fridays is a red herring.  :-)  The rule, which has
always been and still is, is that, in commemoration of the Crucifixion, all
Fridays of the year except those in Christmas and Eastertide and those upon
which Feasts happen to fall are days upon which Catholics (including Anglicans
-- see the 1979 Pb p. 17) are to make special acts of denial.  Refraining from
meat was a specific direction to provide uniform guidance; fish was allowed
because the letters of the Greek word for fish, ICHTHUS, form the Greek phrase
"Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour".

Now, I don't know the specific reasons that the rule was changed to allow
individuals to choose their own acts of self-denial, but it makes sense to
me -- I like fish!  Eating a nice tuna steak is no act of self-denial for me!
Now Catholics who love fish are expected to find a real act of self-denial.

The business of Saturday evening Mass is also not what you claim it is.
The rule is that Catholics must be present at the weekly Sunday sacrifice
in commemoration of the Resurrection.  In order to reach more people, to
evangelize (our Lord's Great Commission!), the use of Vigil Masses (Masses
on the Eve of a Feast -- which have always existed) has been increased.
The obligation has not changed; there are just more opportunities to
fulfill the obligation.  And, of course, with a lively faith going to
Mass is no chore -- it's something you can look forward to all week, or
even do every day!

These changes in discipline, in the way obligations are met, cannot be
compared to liberal desires for drastic changes to the view of serious
moral issues such as chastity!

/john

    Re: .92
    
    Not a fault in my education, John. Just pointing out the facts,
    as you also have been known to do.
    
    Marc H.

Marc,

Your earlier reply was correct.  My reply was directed more at others.

However, you didn't need to use the word "wrong" at the beginning of it,
because your reply didn't contradict my reply -- it added to it.

And though correct, your reply was incomplete, for there has been no change.
Failure to observe the Friday fast was and still is a venial sin today.

Venial sins, unlike mortal sins, do not mean a turning away from and
rejection of God; they are minor failings in our duty to God.  We all
commit venial sins all the time, when we do not give God as much as we
could of our lives.  Through constant infusions of grace, our love of
God increases, and our occasion for such minor sin decreases.

/john

    Re: .94
    
    Thanks for the english lesson. My word use for "wrong"...was....wrong.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .92
    
    Okay John, I didn't mean to be disingenuous.  I didn't mean to have it
    seem like the Church is about to redefine its basic moral codes or
    articles of faith.  All I meant to convey is that the Catholic Church
    in particular, and Christianity in general, are not quite the
    immutable, hidebound organizations that some conservative members would
    have us believe, either.  While its core beliefs haven't changed a
    great deal over the centuries, it certainly has changed its emphasis
    from time to time over the centuries.  I'm sure you can agree with
    that.
    
    Mike

Mike,

You fail to discern the differences between articles of dogma, doctrine, canon
law, and so forth.  That is, you fail to discern the difference between
Tradition and tradition.

Articles of dogma cannot be changed, nor added to, and must be embraced in order
to be saved.  They have not changed and never will change and cannot change.
These are such articles as the literal Resurrection of Christ, the existence
of Original Sin, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and so forth.

Articles of doctrine cannot change, but they can be developed into more detailed
forms.  The church is again not free to change its mind on these matters.

Below this are various other instructions which may or may not change -- this
includes canon law and some other stuff.  Because the Church has the authority
of Christ himself, we are obligated to obey what the church asks us to do (to
varying degrees).  Not to obey the church on certain matters constitute sin,
because it is rebellion against the authority of God as instituted in the
church.

Many years ago, the church required people to fast on Fridays.  This was a
disciplinary measure, not a matter of divine revelation, and any official
church document you read will make this clear.  Yet not to fast on Friday was
a sin -- NOT because it was divinely revealed and unchangable that you must
fast on Friday, but because you disobeyed a solemn instruction of the church.
Not to fast on Friday was a rebellion against the church and hence a sin. Yet
the church was free to change that if it wished, and it did.  Never did the
church claim that it was divinely revealed that we must fast on Friday.

The same thing applies to priestly celibacy.  It is not a sin for priests to be
married -- indeed some of them are.  What IS a sin is to violate the vow of
chastity that Latin priests are required to take to be ordained -- the church
has instituted a discipline that all Roman priests must be celibate.  The
church has always said that this is only a discipline, not inherently required
for the priesthood, and so it is free to change, if the church desires it. But
for now, the church, by its authority, has decreed the Roman priests must be
celibate, and if they are not, this is a sin because it is rebellion against
the church.

Re Mass on Sunday, actually what is forbidden is to miss the weekly celebration
of the Resurrection, which normally occurs on Sunday, but which can also be
celebrated on the Sunday vigil (i.e. Saturday).  Since you are celebrating the
Sunday liturgy on Saturday, it fulfills the obligation.  If you celebrated a
Saturday Mass on Saturday, it would NOT fulfill the obligation.  But again, this
is simply something the church by its authority has imposed, and not a matter
of divine revelation.

On the other hand, there are other matters which the church is NOT free to
change, because they were instituted not by the church, but by God directly.
The church cannot change its policy forbidding divorce, because Jesus revealed
that policy.  The church cannot under any circumstances ordain women priests,
because God has ordained that priests must be male.

The church is also free to change certain aspects of the liturgy (under 
controlled conditions), such as the wording, who can be lector, who can be 
acolyte, what is read, what language is used, and so forth. The fact that these 
things change is no evidence that other things may change.

In short, one needs to know which aspects of the faith can be changed by the
church, which aspects are left to the individual to believe, which aspects 
cannot change, and which aspects cannot change and must be held for one's
salvation.

Eric

    re: fish day
    
    I understood that the no meat on Friday rule had been completely
    decriminalized.  
    
    And incidentally, I can remember once when I was a kid wolfing down a
    hot dog I bought from a street vendor, only to be reminded in horror by
    one of my chums that it was Friday.  Scared the living daylights out of
    me, as only an 8-year old boy can be scared, because I was certain I
    was going to go to hell if I died before I could get to confession.  
    (I still can't shake the feeling that in the 1950's at least, the
    Church was teaching us that eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin.)
    But then, the Church spent a lot of time and effort trying to fill us
    full of fear in those days. 
    
    Mike

    RE: .98
    
    Know what you mean Mike. I remember a similar episode with regard
    to eating a hamburger on a friday at camp one summer.
    
    Marc H.

Maybe there's a bit of a misunderstanding of the difference between a mortal
and a venial sin.

Certainly there are certain things that are such grave sins that they always
require specific, sincere, drastic reconciliation to God -- failure to
acknowledge them can mean the death of the soul -- though I prefer to
believe or hope (in my own opinion) that God's infinite mercy is greater
than our human ability to comprehend and that there may be another chance
to repent, another blinding flash of revelation like the one St. Paul had,
which can save us at the last.

Those minor failings that are venial sins _can_ become mortal sins if the
_manner_in_which_they_are_committed_ changes from a lack of discipline to
an out-and-out deliberate rejection of the call of God to live a life in
close union with him.

/john

    RE: .100  Mr. Covert,
    
    				Have you any Biblical reference which makes
    the distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins?   This has been a
    problem with me in light of God not being able to look upon sin.  Seems
    to me that it wouldn't matter.  Sin is sin.
    
    
    Dave

In this conference, someone asking for a Biblical reference?

Possibly, someone can find one, but I don't think it's necessary if
you understand that both mortal and venial sins are sins, and require
correction.

Mortal sins are outright rejections of God's commandments, serious
failings, a turning away from God, with full attention to what we
are doing.  Mortal sin causes grave injury to the soul.

Venial sins are truly sins, and we are guilty if we commit venial sins,
but they are not a turning away from God; they might be best described
as a slipping or falling on the road to God.

We are all sinners; we all need to avoid both venial, and even moreso,
mortal sins.  We need to be sorry for both!

/john

    As regards category of sins: When I was a lad the Church taught that
    the difference between the two was that if one died with a mortal sin
    on one's soul, one went straight to haitch-E-double-hockeysticks,
    whereas, if one died with one or more venial sins on one's soul, one
    only had to spend a bit of time in Purgatory prior to entry into
    heaven.  
    
    Mike

Re:  417.59

  >The outspoken conservatives in this file feel that they have the
  >absolute truth.

The outspoken conservatives believe by faith that the Bible contains
the absolute truth.

The outspoken liberals believe (I contend that this belief is also
by faith) that the Bible does *not* contain the absolute truth.

  >That they are omniscience in there knowledge of good and evil.

God is omniscient and has revealed much of his knowledge to us.

  >That anyone who doesn't read the bible the same way as they
  >do is definately evil and it is a sign of their love to
  >tell us so.  

We are all evil.  Those who do not accept God's plan for forgiveness
and act on it are doomed.  Yes, since they have rejected God, they
will continue their evil ways to a greater degree than those who
have accepted God.

  >Therefore is continues to astonish me that people are so
  >apt to argue "God only sanctions sex within marriage" or any other
  >assumption that they know what God wants in specific situations.

On the other hand, it does not surprise me in the least that you
desire to reject what you have rejected based on your own beliefs of
what is moral.  You have rejected the God of the Bible.  The Bible
talks quite a bit about the nature, habits and subsequent choices of
those who reject the God of the Bible.

Collis

Yep, that's the teaching.  It's because mortal sins are a serious turning
away from God.  They are REALLY BAD THINGS, doing things you shouldn't have
done, not just leaving undone those things you ought to have done.  (The
distinction isn't quite that simple, as I said before, intent and your
relationship with God are more important than any column A / column B lists,
imho.)

And that was my point about hoping that God's Infinite Mercy is greater
than we humans have been able to comprehend, and that maybe, just maybe,
you get one last chance to ask for forgiveness.  But that's only my own
hope.

Better to not commit any serious sins, and, failing that, as many do,
better to reconcile yourself to God as soon as you can.

/john

Re:  417.90

  >Jeff, even the Bible changes.  Else there wouldn't be the big fuss that
  >is continuously going on in regards to which translation of the Bible
  >is more nearly correct,...

Because there are various translations does not mean that the "Bible"
is changing"

  >...nor would there be so many Biblical scholars running about trying 
  >to determine more nearly what the original intent and meaning of the 
  >words actually were.

Because people are constantly striving to interpret the Bible better
does not mean the Bible is changing.

Now, if you noted that the Greek New Testament Nestle-Aland is up to 
version 26 and the Greek New Testament put out by the United Bible 
Society is up to version 3, then you could at least make the point
that our understanding of what was the original text has changed
some over the past century.  Hopefully, it will change even more if
more scrolls are discovered.

  >After all, the words within the context of the ancient cultures and
  >ancient languages are not likely to convey the same intent as the
  >their literal translation today. 

I suppose that this is why there are no "literal translations" on the
market today.  All "translations" are a combination of translation/
interpretation.  Some are more literal translation (NASV) than other
(NIV).

  >Finally, let us not forget that the Bible was written by people with
  >an agenda, was canonized by other people with another agenda, is
  >translated by still different people with an agenda, and is
  >interpreted to the masses by yet more people with an agenda.  All of
  >whose agendas are not necessarily congruent, true, or even necesarily
  >good-intentioned. 
    
It is the agenda of the author of this statement that *I* question.  :-)

Collis

    RE: .105
    
    In my earlier catholic teaching, a mortal sin was missing church on
    Sunday (before sat. services became an option). Also, **KILLING**
    was a mortal sin, with the same results in your journey to Hell.
    
    I'm not so sure **WHY** the catholic church became so fixed on listing
    sins and "rating" them.....
    
    Now, that would make an interesting note.
    
    Marc H.

    Richard,
    
    I certainly didn't intend to stifle the recurring debate as appropriate
    to each string.  I was asked here not only about the same debate by
    the same people -- inluding me from time to time! -- but even an
    almost-the-same title, i.e., "What's this file about?" and "The
    Processing Topic."  Seems redundant, but maybe it wasn't in the 
    beginning.
    
>> Do I detect a hint of frustration in your question?
    
    I think "hint" is a significant understatement!  :-)
    
    Carry on; I'm quite capable of hitting next-unseen!
    
    Nancy

>    I was asked here not only about the same debate by
>    the same people -- inluding me from time to time! -- but even an
>    almost-the-same title, i.e., "What's this file about?" and "The
>    Processing Topic."  Seems redundant, but maybe it wasn't in the 
>    beginning.

Well, you're certainly not wrong.

There's a *lot* of overlap and redundancy.  When notes drift off topic, the
co-moderators and I try to move them to more appropriate topics.  Other times,
we just place a pointer to a related string.  Still other times, we seem to
just let things run their course.

To me, "What's this file about?" explores the parameters of this conference,
while "The Processing Topic" serves as a kind of paralingual note; a note
which discusses other notes.  "The Processing Topic" has also been used to
prevent other topics from becoming "rat-holed" or derailed by some tangental
issue.

Peace,
Richard

Note 544.17                 -< What I found in CP >-

>    I find it consistent that some participants in CP deny that Paul
>    taught what Jesus taught.

>    I find it consistent that some participants in CP deny that the Bible
>    is the revealed word of God.

Patrick,

	We chronically hear you, John Covert, and less frequently others
criticizing, complaining, and lamenting about what you find here in CP.
I've heard it so often that it all sounds like so much whining.

	You realize, of course, that CP is not going to simply change and
conform to whatever you would rather have it be.  Perhaps this is why you've
not responded to a single invitation to provide suggestions for improvement.

	I'm certain you also realize that there exist more restrictive
notefiles than CP, which you might not find so abrasive to your religious
sensibilities.

	Let me lay it on the line for you.  I'm afraid the negative way in
which you choose to express yourself here is driving people away from this
notesfile.  You might feel that this result is of no concern to you --
I don't know.  But I think this situation is something which is *truly*
lamentable.

Richard

    Are you saying that people who believe that Paul taught what Jesus
    taught are unwelcome?

    Are you saying that people who believe the Bible to be the revealed
    word of God to be unwelcome?

    What one person hears as a whine another hears as the witness to Our
    Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    Let me put words in Richard's mouth ...

    All ... repeat ... all ... are welcome in this file - whatever your
    belief or lack thereof.  Good grief ... I'm here ... I was welcomed
    into this conference.  That says a great deal (to me).  That says
    that I may get a great deal closer to understanding what this thing
    called "Christianity" is.  I like the diversity.

    What in the name of <deity> is wrong with a diversity of opinions?

    Bubba

Note 417.111

>    Are you saying that people who believe that Paul taught what Jesus
>    taught are unwelcome?

Not at all.  I said nothing about *what* you what you believe.

>    Are you saying that people who believe the Bible to be the revealed
>    word of God to be unwelcome?

Not at all.  Once again, it is not the message which is driving people away.
If you don't understand, simply say you don't understand.

>    What one person hears as a whine another hears as the witness to Our
>    Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The voice whining in the wilderness, eh? ;-)

Perhaps someone else might better articulate what I am trying to say.

Richard

    RE: .111  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				As Jerry Beeler has already said and
    Richard, all are welcome to participate here.  However, as a Christian,
    I have been concerened at your *VERY* negative attitude and some people
    are asking why you don't just leave.  I will also admitt that your
    negative attitude toward this file and the noters have caused people to
    wonder why they shoud be a Christian *IF* the result is the same kind
    of attitude you have been displaying.  It seems to me and others that
    only your "brand" of religion will ever satisfy your "ideal" for this
    file.  I will tell you now that I will not change, and I would doubt if
    others would either, based on the majority of notes you have written in
    this file.  The Christ I worship love's sinners even when he knows that
    they are wrong.  Can you display that kind of love and if so, will you?
    
    
    Dave

   This is not an arguement of which Bible is right or which Church
   conforms most correctly.  This is about how people treat one another.
   If you desire a chance to witness then you seek an audience who would
   hear your words.  If on the other hand that desire is to clear the 
   room then preach on, you will not have been heard nor saved anyone.
   One thing is clear [if only to me], encouraging the spiritual self is
   speading God's most fundemental message and requires courage and patience.
   Those who would force the process only shortchange the message and 
   diminish those who seek a more complete spiritual life.  In plain
   english, bring people to God not threaten them with God.

   This file is here to in part support those who are conducting a
   spiritual search within themselves.  Messages that read like, "your
   doing it wrong" or "your bad for believing..." need to be tempered
   realization you will drive people away, not have them listen and
   ponder your message.

   Consider the message, the echo in the empying room grows louder.

   For the love of God,
   Allison

    To whom can I speak and give warning?
    Who will listen to me?
    
    Their ears are closed so they cannot hear.
    
    The word of the Lord is offensive to them;
    they find no pleasure in it.
    
    But I am full of the wrath of the Lord and I cannot hold it in.
    
    Jer 6:10

<    But I am full of the wrath of the Lord and I cannot hold it in.
<    
<    Jer 6:10

   Patrick,

   There is a lesson, it is one of faith, courage, and persistance.  
   Jeremiah was upset that he wasn't heard also.  Could it be that 
   verse was there for you to find for yourself?

   Peace,
   Allison

It's apparent to me that you, Patrick, presently have no actual interest in
reaching those whom you would have hear you.

The presentation sounds too much like the noise from a clanging gong.
(I Corinthians 13.1)

Richard

Pat, you can't use the Bible to convince people who don't believe it.

/john

.114> I will also admitt that your negative attitude toward this file
.114> and the noters have caused people to wonder why they shoud be a
.114> Christian......

Can we say ... "amen"?  One thing that I have learned from this file -
there are many different facets of Christianity.  There are many different
types of Christians.  There are some facets that I want nothing to do with
and there are some that I feel quite comfortable with.  Guess which parts
I want nothing to do with?

.116> The word of the Lord is offensive to them;
.116> they find no pleasure in it.

No, not really, but, there are those who pretend to interpret His word,
and .. well .. frankly .. they bug the dickens out of me.
    
.119> Pat, you can't use the Bible to convince people who don't believe it.

We agree!

Bubba

<Pat, you can't use the Bible to convince people who don't believe it.

  /john,

   On matters of interpretation we will likely but not allways disagree.
   Be of good cheer though, I do not disregard the Bible either.

   Peace,
   Allison

    I love our God with God with all my heart, and will all my soul, and
    with all my mind.  I love my neighbor as myself. (Mt 23:15)  that is my
    answer to 1 Co 13:1
    
    I believe what Jesus taught.
    I believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God.
    I believe that Paul taught what Jesus taught.
    
    That is my Christian Perspective

    RE: .122
    
    Then why don't you also try and talk/listen to people in the Christian
    spirt?
    
    Marc H.

    91.2108
    
    Daniel,
    
    	Can you explain how you happen to be able to grasp what
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is all about while others seemingly have
    such difficulty with it?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    It came to me in a dream?
    
    8-)
    
    Daniel

    Daniel,
    
    It must have been a wonderful dream.
    
    
    Patricia

    I have been trying to just fade away, but Richard's prompting
    questions, and a nagging remembrance of a voice from a counsellor who
    insists on the importance of endings prompts me to more officially end
    my participation here.
    
    This note seems a fit place.  It has been almost four years of noting. 
    It's not that I might not occassionally drop in, but I recognize that
    my hope for an electronic community will not be met here.
    
    I have gained a great deal.  I certainly can articulate what I hold
    dear more articulately than I could four years ago.  As I have been
    studying biblical material in school, this file has reinforced my
    learning and provided a place to articulate what I have been learning
    and how it relates to my my living in the world.
    
    There has been a negative impact, in that I have tended to judge
    Christianity by the loudest, least accepting voices in here.  I think
    that I am going to be more intentional about using the United Church of
    Christ as my yardstick of what a Christian Church can be and can
    accomplish.  Not that I plan too, but if I joined a Christian faith
    community, that is the one I would join.
    
    I care about the people here, and wish you all well.  
    
    Shalom and Peace
    
    
    Patricia

.127

Well, damn.  :-{

Richard

Z    This note seems a fit place.  It has been almost four years of noting. 
Z    It's not that I might not occassionally drop in, but I recognize that
Z    my hope for an electronic community will not be met here.
 
I came to that conclusion myself quite a long time ago.  I see fellowship in 
same way you see community.  In order for fellowship to happen, likemindedness
must be present.  It doesn't mean I didn't see value here, I just don't 
think a forum as volatile as this was conducive for such a set up. 
   
Z    There has been a negative impact, in that I have tended to judge
Z    Christianity by the loudest, least accepting voices in here.  

I think you would do yourself a great injustice by leaving on that note; 
however, I do firmly believe that people must be true to their own conscience
and their ideology must be based upon sound reason and evidence.  

Z    I think
Z    that I am going to be more intentional about using the United Church of
Z    Christ as my yardstick of what a Christian Church can be and can
Z    accomplish.  Not that I plan too, but if I joined a Christian faith
Z    community, that is the one I would join.
 
Patricia, I wish you well.  I thought you were going to be a UU minister.  
This would involve joining a faith community of some sort. 
   
Take care of yourself, remember that the God we serve is an awesome God, 
mighty, holy, and sovereign.  

Warm Rgds.,


-Jack   
  
                                                        

    
    >Not that I plan too, but if I joined a Christian faith
    >community, that is the one I would join.
    
    I appreciate this final acknowledgement that you do not consider
    yourself a Christian, Patricia.  After many months of debate it appears 
    that your eyes have been opened to some extent concerning the important
    distinctions of the Christian faith.
    
    It would be un-Christlike to suggest that you go your merry way, the
    biblical "wide gate" which leads to destruction so I'll not be a
    hypocrite.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 417.130 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I appreciate this final acknowledgement that you do not consider yourself a 
| Christian, Patricia.  

	Hmmm... I guess like the Bible, it all comes down to a matter of
interpretation. I took it that she was referring to the type of Christian that
is more from the Fundamental side, not of the side she is presently on. 

| It would be un-Christlike to suggest that you go your merry way, the
| biblical "wide gate" which leads to destruction so I'll not be a hypocrite.

	Guess there is a first for everything.


Glen

>	Guess there is a first for everything.


>	Glen
    
    Well, I'm still hoping you'll post your first note of substance
    someday, Glen.
    
    jeff

    Some of us hold out that same hope for others.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Well, I'll submit my notes with Glen's for testing of substance by an
    objective source any day of the year.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 417.134 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| Well, I'll submit my notes with Glen's for testing of substance by an
| objective source any day of the year.

	Who would you consider to be objective?

    Eeeeeehemm....cough cough....nudge nudge....

    
    Yes, Yes! Jack Martin. He's our man. If he can't be objective nobody can!
    
    

	Gee, first Jack does his cheap advertising stunt, and then Jeff buys
into it. :-)  I think I'm gonna lose this one before it ever starts! :-)

    OBJECTION OVER RULED!!!! :-)

    Well, I don't happen to think it's funny.
    
    Jesus said how recognize his followers.  I leave it to the scrutiny of
    each reader to determine the genuine from the superficial.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 417.129 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN (and .127 by Patricia):

> Z    This note seems a fit place.  It has been almost four years of noting. 
> Z    It's not that I might not occassionally drop in, but I recognize that
> Z    my hope for an electronic community will not be met here.
>  
> I came to that conclusion myself quite a long time ago.  I see fellowship in 
> same way you see community.  In order for fellowship to happen, likemindedness
> must be present.  It doesn't mean I didn't see value here, I just don't 
> think a forum as volatile as this was conducive for such a set up. 

        I long ago came to the conclusion that, for me at least,
        there just aren't many "like-minded" people out there, at
        least not in the sense of substantial agreement over a broad
        range of doctrine, ideology, or philosophy.

        As a result, I don't require it, don't insist on it from
        others, and have quite a good time in diverse circumstances.

        (In fact, I feel a kind of a smothering when I am in an
        environment in which there is little disagreement, regardless
        of what it is, even if they're agreeing with me at the time. 
        It makes me suspicious.  For me, the essence of healthy
        mental life is frequent doses of fresh looks from new
        perspectives.)

        But I also understand that others may feel differently, and
        may even require differently.

        Bob

    Bob,

    You note reflects my sentiments as well. 

    Eric

    Richard:
    
    I think your position on this matter is without precedent and I don't
    believe the bantering a few back was to poke fun at anybody.  I recall
    this conference starting because of the intolerance over in Yukon. 
    This conference has proven that fellowship can not exist without
    likemindedness on the fundamental matters of faith.  I found this forum
    to be refreshing.  I'm sorry that people were sometime so easily
    offended over the years.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 417.144 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| This conference has proven that fellowship can not exist without
| likemindedness on the fundamental matters of faith.  

	Jack, I actually agree with this. Here, you can have groups of people
who share likeminded beliefs. Discussions are started, and people share their
views. 

	You may be asking yourself if likeminded thoughts are being spoken,
where is all the hassle coming from. Part of it deals with people have
different beliefs. These usually don't end up in argument though, just more
discussion (although some do boil over). Then you have the people who hang out 
in the CHRISTIAN notesfile who come in here and think that this notesfile has 
to have the one point of view that they stress their conference have. So because
of that, conflicts erupt a lot more often than not. 



Glen

    Glen:
    
    The people you speak of are pretty much Jeff, Joe, Leslie, myself from
    time to time, and maybe one or two others.  Leslie is the epitomy of
    respect and kindness.  The rest of us....well, I wouldn't say I have
    ever seen anybody say you HAVE to think this way.  I would say some are
    very adamate about their position and quite opinionated...but that's
    what dialog is all about.
    
    What I have found as an observation is a low threshold on the part of
    people.  I notice your threshold is high actually high but let me give
    you an example...
    
    Me: I believe God has called us to be spotless, holy and sanctified and
    this is why I feel couple should stay abstinent before marriage.
    
    Somebody Else:  Jack, you are a purveyor of hate, you lack tolerance,
    you are insensitive to the plight of others.  Who are you to judge how
    other people should live...(keep in mind Glen I am getting railed here
    for giving a plausible opinion).  I find that people like this are
    actually oversensitive and should probably never consider a career in
    politics or as a clergy member because they would be unable to handle
    it.
    
    See what I mean Glen?  We have individuals who have a strong opinion
    and then on the other side we have individuals who are too over
    sensitive for their own good!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 417.146 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| The rest of us....well, I wouldn't say I have ever seen anybody say you HAVE 
| to think this way. I would say some are very adamate about their position and 
| quite opinionated...but that's what dialog is all about.

	Dialogue is fine, what happens, isn't always. When one says your
religion is not that of God's, and that unless you believe the Bible is the
Word of God you won't get into Heaven, etc...then they have gone beyond
dialogue and have tried to make this into a conference like CHRISTIAN. In fact,
many have said this is not a Christian conference. Sorry, Jack, it seems it
goes beyond dialogue. 

| Somebody Else:  Jack, you are a purveyor of hate, you lack tolerance, you are 
| insensitive to the plight of others.  Who are you to judge how other people 
| should live...(keep in mind Glen I am getting railed here for giving a 
| plausible opinion). I find that people like this are actually oversensitive 
| and should probably never consider a career in politics or as a clergy member 
| because they would be unable to handle it.

	Wow..... this is rich. Jack, people have taken the attitude they have
about you due to your constant bashing on so many different topics. You have
shown a complete lack of understanding, been prudish, boorish, and down right
rude. Remember, I used to come to your aid before. I rarely do that now,
because the more you write, the more you have changed my beliefs about you.
When people snap, it isn't due to the one phrase you have thrown out. It is due
to what you have said about that phrase in the past. 

| See what I mean Glen? We have individuals who have a strong opinion and then 
| on the other side we have individuals who are too over sensitive for their own
| good!

	This is another flaw of yours....putting people into neat identifiable
packages. You have done it with the dems, women, gays, this file, etc. So over
sensitive might not be the correct words. It could be when you start to talk
about a certain topic, many think of what you have said in the past.




Glen

:-(

Leslie

    Glen, sorry but I respond only to what I see.  I have adequately proven my
    point that Christianity and Paganism for example, are diametrically
    opposed to each other.  One cannot serve both God and the world as
    Jesus so aptly stated.
    
    As far as my demeanor in here, sorry Glen but you will find that I call
    it as I see it for the most part.  And I have little patience with tap
    dancing around issues.  Perhaps this is something that will be tempered
    over time.  I can tell you from observation even from your recent reply
    that you have two thorns in your side you can't seem to release.  One
    is this thing about the divine inerrancy of scripture.  Apparently you
    have taken great offense to somebody's observation regarding the Bible
    and how one must believe it is the inerrant word of God.  This shows to
    me a lack of confidence in your own faith, otherwise you wouldn't
    continually have a problem with it.  It is okay for you to believe it
    is not divinely inspired but your rhetoric on the matter shows charge
    and emotionalism.  I think you'd be better off ignoring it.  
    
    Regarding things I've said in the past, how you don't defend me as
    much, etc.  I think I know what this is about also.  Ever since a
    certain exchange regarding predispositions you have changed your
    opinion of me.  My question to wit was, what makes your predisposition
    any more plausible than the millions of others that are out there, i.e.
    epilepsy, alcoholism, chemical imbalances, whatever?  You apparently
    took great offense at my inference.  Sorry but the answer still remains
    nebulous!  I contend again that acceptance of predispositions are not a
    God given right but based upon what the society finds
    acceptable...acting upon the same.
    
    So I'm rude huh?  Well I beg to differ Glen.  I think your emotional
    charge is painting me in a box, nothing more.  I believe my demeanor
    toward you has been quite civil.  
    
    -Jack

    Sigh...  This is getting rather heated, isn't it?

>    is this thing about the divine inerrancy of scripture.  Apparently you
>    have taken great offense to somebody's observation regarding the Bible
>    and how one must believe it is the inerrant word of God.  

    Are you saying that someone can't be a Christian if they don't
    believe this?  And, if it is the inerrant word of God then must
    it also be the litteral, as opposed to metaphorical, word of God?

>    This shows to
>    me a lack of confidence in your own faith, otherwise you wouldn't
>    continually have a problem with it.  

    I'd answer, for me, the two questions I posed in the negative and
    yet my faith grows more and more.  The Bible is a tool.  Jesus is
    a Savior.


>    It is okay for you to believe it
>    is not divinely inspired but your rhetoric on the matter shows charge

    I believe the Bible was divinely inspired.  That doesn't mean it
    is inerrant.

    ~/~  Tom  ~/~

.144

>    I think your position on this matter is without precedent and I don't
>    believe the bantering a few back was to poke fun at anybody.

Yes, you, Bullethead and Lumpy are free to carry on as you see fit, Jack.

Perhaps similar banter will take place the day after you or I are no longer
participating.

Richard

| <<< Note 417.149 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>

| Glen, sorry but I respond only to what I see.  

	Jack, how many times do you need to be corrected before you figure out
that when you state something like it is a fact, when it is really just your
opinion, people won't take kindly to it.

| I can tell you from observation even from your recent reply that you have two 
| thorns in your side you can't seem to release. One is this thing about the 
| divine inerrancy of scripture. Apparently you have taken great offense to 
| somebody's observation regarding the Bible and how one must believe it is the 
| inerrant word of God.  

	Jack, someone could tell you over and over that anyone who believes the
Bible is the Word of God is stupid, and it will get to you after a while. 

| This shows to me a lack of confidence in your own faith, otherwise you 
| wouldn't continually have a problem with it.  

	Wow....straight out of the Joe Oppelt book. Did he help you with this,
Jack? :-)

| It is okay for you to believe it is not divinely inspired but your rhetoric 
| on the matter shows charge and emotionalism. I think you'd be better off 
| ignoring it.

	Yup.... Joe helped you out. 

| Regarding things I've said in the past, how you don't defend me as much, etc. 
| I think I know what this is about also. Ever since a certain exchange 
| regarding predispositions you have changed your opinion of me. My question 
| to wit was, what makes your predisposition any more plausible than the 
| millions of others that are out there, i.e. epilepsy, alcoholism, chemical 
| imbalances, whatever? You apparently took great offense at my inference. 

	Jack, you flatter yourself too much. I've watched, for the most part
silently, while you would go after Patricia. I've watched you make many
opinions about many things out to be fact. Remember, others have seen this, and
told you about it. If you take all of these things, put them together, and it
is a good start to what changed my view of you. I won't go into other
conferences with this.

| I contend again that acceptance of predispositions are not a God given right 
| but based upon what the society finds acceptable...acting upon the same.

	Actually, for someone that believes in Him as much as you do, I'm
surprised you would have the word society even involved when you're talking
about what is acceptable.

Glen

	RE: .150



		Tom... it appears that you and I think the same way when it 
	comes to the Bible. Cool. :-)

Having just caught up in this note, I think I see why Patricia left :^0

    Well, I guess I'm back.  
    
    It feels good to be back.  This is an important place for reflection.
    
    It was good to get away as well.  I can feel a shift in perspective
    that is healthy.  I can feel the strenghtening of my own faith.  It is
    good.  This file is a good place to be.  I will go back to Andover 
    Newton in the Fall, renewed.
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    Why don't you consider going to Gordon...then you could feel like you
    are in C-P all the time! :-)

    Jack,
    
    I'm not into S&M
    
    
                                  patricia

    Haaaa!!!!!
    
    

>    Why don't you consider going to Gordon...then you could feel like you
>    are in C-P all the time! :-)

Good one, Jack :-)

213.510

>    Patricia, as long as nobody's feelings are hurt, consider it like a
>    game of Chess!

Something about this reduction bothers me.  Probably it's the intimation
that all this is about as inconsequential as a game of chess.

Richard

    Not at all Richard.  I read a book on Judaism and its history. 
    Apparently the synagogues and the Rabbinical schools practice a certain
    activity...can't remember the name, but two scholars actually dealve
    deep into debate over canonical matters.  I happen to find this very
    informative and challenging..as it helps me understand others as well
    as better understand my faith.  
    
    Ever see the movie Yentel, with Barbara Streisand?  She constantly does
    this with her classmate...that is until he finds out he is a she! :-)
    
    My chess statement is shrouded by the intent of constructive and not
    destructive.  i.e. Patricia'saccusation of idolatry threatens my rook!
    :-)  Not to worry.  I believe when information is exchanged, nobody
    really loses!
    
    -Jack
                 

    Jack,
    
    your answer, talking about the exchange of information shows an
    emphasis on intellectualization and rational processing.
    
    In truth, I have been deeply hurt at times by the criticism and attack
    in here.
    
    In truth, I have grown immensely because of feeling that hurt,
    internalizing why I could be hurt be someone calling me satanic, etc,
    internalizing why someone would make those accusations, and beginning
    to understand how I intent to take a stand.
    
    Today, as an example when Jeff accuses me of being a false teacher and
    headed for eternal destruction because of my false teaching I can smile
    and know that the problem is a faith issue for Jeff and not a faith
    issue for me.  This is real learning for me.
    
    But just because I have weathered the attacks and come out stronger
    as a result, that does not justify the attacks.  People come into this
    file because they are open to different perspectives on Christianity
    and because they want to learn about and listen to different
    perspectives on Christianity.  You and Jeff and all those who try so
    desparately to convert us  in here would do much better if you stuck to
    what you believe, why you believe it, and the impact it has made on
    your own lives as opposed to why we are all going to hell if we refuse
    to believe as you believe.   You may even win more converts if you
    displayed that positive aspect of your religion, rather than the
    negative condemning aspect.
    
                                 Patricia.
    
    
    

Z    You and Jeff and all those who try so
Z    desparately to convert us  in here would do much better if you
Z    stuck to what you believe, why you believe it, and the impact it has made on
Z    your own lives as opposed to why we are all going to hell if we refuse
Z    to believe as you believe.   You may even win more converts if you
Z    displayed that positive aspect of your religion, rather than the
Z    negative condemning aspect.
    
    Patricia, thanks for your reply, but I believe we need to clear a few
    matters up here.
    
    While it is true that I would very much like to see a change in the way
    you view things...180 degrees to be exact, I also know that it is the
    Spirit that quickeneth and that draws people to salvation.  Efforts
    coming from Jack Martin are futile...if they come from Jack Martin. 
    Change has to come from within and as you wrote when you left this
    file, true fellowship simply cannot nor will not take place here. 
    Likemindedness must take place in order for fellowship to occur.  I see
    that as a futile attempt...since we all go by different standards. 
    It's nothing personal for any of us...it's just the way things are.
    
    Therefore, our bantering back and forth has little value unless it is
    looked at in its proper perspective.  You seem to have had no problem 
    telling me in the last few weeks that I speak a gospel of hate...that I
    worship scripture (idol worship), etc.  Hey, I very much admire
    somebody who stands up for their convictions...no skin off my nose.
    
    Therefore, I would expect the same courtesy from you.  If I imply to
    you, as you have to me, that your doctrine on the nature of God is
    deeply confused and convoluted, when I imply that your professors seem
    to be instilling pap and reenforcing these unfounded paganistic
    doctrines, then you should always take this as an issue of faith...just
    as you do with Jeff.  There is absolutely no reason to have your
    feelings hurt by criticism and attack here...since our foundation here
    is based strictly on intellect and not faith.  We share no faith
    heritage here but we do share one thing it seems...the inert desire to
    attain confidence in what we believe in and the ability to test our
    faith in the realm of adversity.  
    
    Remember...my desperation in converting you is a waste...but God can
    convert you in the twinkling of an eye...and I have faith He will in
    his time.  Truly a miracle I will probably not see but there you have
    it...
    
    Keep in mind that conversion does by no means negate your passion
    toward equal rights, etc.  The two are mutually exclusive.  In other
    words, I by no means hope you are exactly like whatever it is you have
    subscribed as evil...I simply want you to be saved.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 417.163 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Efforts coming from Jack Martin are futile...

	I'm going to save this one... yup... I certainly am! :-)

| Likemindedness must take place in order for fellowship to occur.  

	No, it does not. Likemindedness only means the fellowship can occur on
that topic. I don't have to agree with someone to have fellowship in here. It
comes down to how it is presented, what it is one is saying. If someone says my
thoughts are different than theirs, so I am going to Hell....then fellowship is
not going to happen. If someone says my thoughts are different than theirs,
they don't agree with it, but they at least understand why I came to the
conclusions I did, then fellowship can happen. And who knows what can happen
when it does. In other words, telling someone they are going to Hell is
useless. There is only One who knows if one will be in Heaven or Hell. And that
isn't me, you, Jeff, anyone. It is God. And if someone tells another something
they can't possibly know is true or not.....then aren't they bearing false
witness?



Glen

|    perspectives on Christianity.  You and Jeff and all those who try so
|    desparately to convert us  in here would do much better if you stuck to
|    what you believe, why you believe it, and the impact it has made on
|    your own lives as opposed to why we are all going to hell if we refuse
|    to believe as you believe.   You may even win more converts if you
|    displayed that positive aspect of your religion, rather than the
|    negative condemning aspect.
    
    thanks for the constructive criticism, Patricia.  I have to say that I
    largely agree with you.  When we put our focus on Jesus Christ, His
    love, how He's changed us, how He walks with us, it is the most
    powerful witness.
    
    Mike

 Z   But the failings of
 Z   those who claimed infallible possession of the truth in the past,
 Z   makes me very suspicious of those claiming infallible possession of the
 Z   truth today. 
    
    Glen, perhaps you ought to get some ort of commentary on the original
    meaning of terms and words.  Fellowship does in fact require
    likemindedness.  In the context of a church, there must be a cohesive
    foundation of beliefs on matters of doctrinal issues.  
    
    Also and FWIW, I find it interesting that you and others in this file
    continually accuse the likes of me, Jeff and others of telling people
    they are going to hell.  I have not seen this done here at all.  What I
    have seen is people posting the consequences of their own
    decisions...eternal life vs. being eternally lost.  
    
    -Jack

>    Also and FWIW, I find it interesting that you and others in this file
>    continually accuse the likes of me, Jeff and others of telling people
>    they are going to hell.  I have not seen this done here at all.  What I
>    have seen is people posting the consequences of their own
>    decisions...eternal life vs. being eternally lost.  

    So you're not saying we'll be eternally damned but rather we'll
    be eternally lost instead?

    Is there a difference?

    Tom

  Z   So you're not saying we'll be eternally damned but rather we'll
  Z   be eternally lost instead?
    
    What I have said Tom, is I believe that Choice A will yield the fruit
    of righteousness and mercy while Choice B will yield the fruit of
    unrighteousness and judgement.  Since we are not to judge, I leave you
    to draw your own conclusion.
    
    -Jack

>    What I have said Tom, is I believe that Choice A will yield the fruit
>    of righteousness and mercy while Choice B will yield the fruit of
>    unrighteousness and judgement.  Since we are not to judge, I leave you
>    to draw your own conclusion.

    Hello Jack,

    You're saying I'm damned if I don't think like you without
    coming right out and saying it.

    I am oddly amused :-)

    Tom

| <<< Note 417.166 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, perhaps you ought to get some sort of commentary on the original meaning
| of terms and words.  

	Jack, I did not write what you quoted.

| Fellowship does in fact require likemindedness. In the context of a church, 
| there must be a cohesive foundation of beliefs on matters of doctrinal issues.

	A Prodestant could have a fellowship with a Catholic. You have
similarities, you have differences. But in the end, you could have fellowship.

| Also and FWIW, I find it interesting that you and others in this file 
| continually accuse the likes of me, Jeff and others of telling people
| they are going to hell.  

	Then don't do it. Pretty simple. :-)


Glen

	Tom, in reality you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. You
can't please everyone, so just please Him. 

 ..and how do you know what pleases Him?

 Z   You're saying I'm damned if I don't think like you without
 Z   coming right out and saying it.
    
    Well Tom, since I am not a mind reader, nor am I God, what I think
    actually matters not.  What I am obligated to do...and what I am
    compelled to do is share the message of eternal life as I see it.  Like
    I said, change of belief system must pass a strong litmus test.  Tom,
    the concept of Goddess worship and paganism fails...fails not
    only from a biblical perspective but also from an historical
    perspective.  My personal observation of whether one is redeemed or not
    is of course there...just as your preconceptions of my bigotry or hate
    exist within you.  But I do go by what I see and what I hear.  I will
    not be a phoney Tom...you won't accuse me of that!
    
    -Jack  

| <<< Note 417.172 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| ..and how do you know what pleases Him?

	My belief is He lets us know what pleases Him all the time. The big
question is do we always hear Him.



Glen

| <<< Note 417.173 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| just as your preconceptions of my bigotry or hate exist within you.  

	A lot of people seem to have this impression from time to time. 

    And many of us believe that you Glen, portray to us a faith system on a
    human creating shaky foundation...so???

	and you can believe that, as i am not out to please you..... i am out
to please God.

    Jack,

>    exist within you.  But I do go by what I see and what I hear.  I will
>    not be a phoney Tom...you won't accuse me of that!

    Yer right about that.  I may say you're wrong but you're certainly
    genuine.

    I think I'll stop right there :-)

    Tom :-)

    I understand that Glen.  The trouble is you have continually failed to
    show any understanding of who God is.  You believe he's real
    big...okay...so?  Any crawling creature on the earth understands that.
     
    Glen, you're being held accountable by others simply because you
    identify with others.  What's so difficult about that???  Ohhh...I get
    it...you were brought up believing that bologna that faith, religion,
    and God are all deeply personal matters...blah blah blah...Horsehockey!
    As God said to Job...Gird your loins and walk like a man....
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 417.179 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I understand that Glen. The trouble is you have continually failed to show any
| understanding of who God is.  

	Then you do not understand what I said....even though you say you do. I
do not believe as you do. It does not mean I have not shown understanding of
who God is. It is just a different understanding than yours. Nothing more,
nothing less.

| Any crawling creature on the earth understands that.

	How many born-again lizards are there, Jack?

| Glen, you're being held accountable by others simply because you identify 
| with others.  

	But that is just it.... the same people who are trying to hold me
accountable are also the same ones who think God is holding everyone
accountable. So it might make more sense, and be far less contradictory, if
those people would not bother holding me accountable for t=something they can't
do in the first place. Leave it to Him.



Glen

    I have to disagree about fellowship.  One of my closer friends and a
    neighbor is Methodist.  We have fellowship as we both agree on some of
    the ideas of what God(dess) is, even though we both practice seemingly
    different religions.  She has finally resolved within her self that I
    am not hellbound or trying to convert her, and I accept that she is
    finding her own path to the mother, if not in this life, then the next. 
    We can still discuss basic tenants of both our religions and enjoy the
    similarities, while debating the differences.  
    
    Is it fellowship to discuss the nature of god(dess)'s love?  I think
    so.  Is it fellowship to discuss why we can't be evil to others?  How
    about discussing charities, which we both participate in.  We team up
    for girl scouts, and have found ways to get around the obvious
    differences in prayer.  (Thank you UU's for as much work as has been
    done around this)  Only by closing one's heart and mind can people of
    different faiths, let alone sects in ones own religion no have
    fellowship with another.
    
    meg
    
    

tenets.

NNTTM

.162
    
>    But just because I have weathered the attacks and come out stronger
>    as a result, that does not justify the attacks.

Two things:

Hallelujah!  And I wish others could see that it doesn't have to be like
this.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    The problem is this.  Ecumenicism is something I see as strongly
    endorsed in C-P.  From what I have seen, ecumenicism means tolerance
    and understanding.  In some cases, compromise and understanding means
    compromising the foundation of one's beliefs.  I wouldn't expect this
    of another unless they could see the point I was making.  Furthermore,
    I have been around these parts about four years now and the wind
    definitely blows both ways.  It has been implied many times that I bend
    toward bigotry, hatred, phobias of various kinds, insensitivity...the
    list goes on...and many times mind you without provocation.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 417.184 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| In some cases, compromise and understanding means compromising the foundation 
| of one's beliefs.  

	Jack, can you name anyone who has asked you to do this? I can't.

| It has been implied many times that I bend toward bigotry, hatred, phobias of 
| various kinds, insensitivity...the list goes on...and many times mind you 
| without provocation.

	Jack, it is because your notes sometimes screams out each of those
things. 


Glen

|	Jack, it is because your notes sometimes screams out each of those
|things. 
    
    Well Glen, to paraphrase Patricia, does that justify the attacks? 
    Looks like a double standard from my house.

| <<< Note 417.186 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Well Glen, to paraphrase Patricia, does that justify the attacks?

	If they are attacks, no. If they are pointing out your ways to you, no.

| Looks like a double standard from my house.

	That's because you live in a glass one. You're seeing the reflection
when the sun hits it just right! :-)

 Z   If they are attacks, no. If they are pointing out your ways to you,
 Z   no.
    
    Well Glen, you will be delighted to know that none of my replies are
    attacks.  Therefore, you have nothing to worry about!

|You're seeing the reflection when the sun hits it just right! :-)
    
    That's "Son" but thanks anyway.  Nicest thing you've ever said to me!

.184

>    The problem is this.

Thank you for explaining the problem.

What is your solution and do you see yourself as part of the solution?

Richard

| <<< Note 417.188 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Well Glen, you will be delighted to know that none of my replies are
| attacks.  Therefore, you have nothing to worry about!

	I fully believe you when you think your notes are not attacks. But it 
still does not change the view some have of you from your notes. One can be 
<insert anything bad> and think they are in the right, and therefor feel they
are not attacking anyone. Ignorance is bliss!


Glen

    Like I said Glen, the wind blows from all quarters.  I don't seem to
    have a problem being called a fanatic...I would expect anybody else
    here to feel confident enough in themselves to be likewise.
    
    -Jack